I just got this lens. It replaces my Zeiss 35/2 Distagon which has been the default lens on my 5D2 for the last few years. The build quality is maybe not up there with Zeiss but it's way much nicer than previous Sigmas or Canon/Nikon. Still have to see how it wears after years of usage, but it's promising. I have nothing to add regarding the optics tht hasn't been already said, it's sharp and is very impressive in regard to shooting directly into light, almost no loss in contrast and I couldn't get it to flare. I still need to see how it performs at f/8-f/11 (my typical landscape apertures). I was glad to see the filter ring is 67mm so I can share my Lee filter ring with my 100 Makro Planar Auto focus seems on par with the Canon lenses I've had before. I did a ruler test and the lens is accurate at least up close.

PhilDrinkwater wrote:
I still worry about using non Canon lenses for pro wedding photography. How will it stand up to the knocks in my bag? How will they cope if it breaks and it needs fixing?

To someone who makes money from their kit, these things really matter. It's a shame because it seems like a very very good lens, buy my trust is not yet high enough to get a Sigma

Having shot almost 1000 weddings at this point in my career I can tell you that between my bag and the backup equipment in the trunk I would have to destroy over $10,000 dollars worth of equipment before I would have any problem continuing to shoot at someones wedding. My bag is like Noah's Ark at least two of everything if something breaks I throw it in the bag grab another one and worry about it when I get home. There is always another complete rig in the trunk of my car, body a few lenses, and a couple of flashes with extra batteries. The same is true of commercial work the last thing I need to worry about is what I didn't bring.

hauxon wrote:
I just got this lens. It replaces my Zeiss 35/2 Distagon which has been the default lens on my 5D2 for the last few years. The build quality is maybe not up there with Zeiss but it's way much nicer than previous Sigmas or Canon/Nikon. Still have to see how it wears after years of usage, but it's promising. I have nothing to add regarding the optics tht hasn't been already said, it's sharp and is very impressive in regard to shooting directly into light, almost no loss in contrast and I couldn't get it to flare. I still need to see how it performs at f/8-f/11 (my typical landscape apertures). I was glad to see the filter ring is 67mm so I can share my Lee filter ring with my 100 Makro Planar Auto focus seems on par with the Canon lenses I've had before. I did a ruler test and the lens is accurate at least up close.

Seriously, I would have considered buying a D800/e, if Nikon had had the sense to build a Canon EF mount version that could fully utilize the Canon lenses.

And here it looks like the 35 IS meets or beats the Sig f/2 to f/5.6, tying from f/5.6 to f/11, that's where I live.

I'm not saying the Sig isn't a nice lens, it's very nice. But it's funny how we manage our expectations. Past experience has taught us that Sig can be unreliable, so we're ecstatic to have a category leading optic in our hands. But Canon merely ties (or at worst, comes close) the new renown optic plus has IS, and it's yesterday's news. It's really about preconceived notions and track record. ...Show more →

No it is about realizing that making a great 35mm f2 lens is not that hard, but making a great 35mm 1.4 lens is a great achievement. An ultra-fast wide angle lens is an extreme design and from the looks of it Sigma has done a better job at it than everyone else including all the reputed brands, hence the excitement.

Yakim Peled wrote:
Yep. And for that you also get IS, faster aperture, faster and more accurate AF and much higher resale value. In the end it's all a matter of personal preferences.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Yes a great lens, but how many people can afford to spend over $ 10k on one lens ? How many times have you done that? It's easy to talk But a different thing when it actually comes to pay the money for it.

And the real question was that someone wished Sigma would make a 500mm lens. And Sigma is doing that

Lars Johnsson wrote:
Yes a great lens, but how many people can afford to spend over $ 10k on one lens ? How many times have you done that? It's easy to talk But a different thing when it actually comes to pay the money for it.

Luckily for me, long lenses do not interest me. However, if I were, I'm sure I'd get a 500/4 IS (I) as for no it looks like the best value-for-money IMHO.

Lars Johnsson wrote:
And the real question was that someone wished Sigma would make a 500mm lens. And Sigma is doing that

He was asking for a 500/5.6 and I presume it was to save weight (and possibly money as well). Sigma made some unique lenses no other lens maker make: 8-16, a small 30/1.4, 150/2.8, 150/2.8 OS, 120-300/2.8 OS to name a few. Now, a 2Kg. 500/5.6 OS would sound very interesting, don't you think? If I was after long lenses such a lens would be extremely appealing to me.